I'm not sure what a libertarian liberal is, but I have increasingly less respect for libertarian conservatives. They seem to believe, despite all evidence, that regulations and safety nets are bad. All we need to do is leave working people to the tender mercies of market forces and they'll thrive. Or perhaps they don't give a damn whether they thrive--or survive.

That's not always the case. It's not libertarian to oppose laws that protect us from those who would do us harm while hiding behind market forces. The recent financial crisis is a good example. On the other hand, I resent laws that assume that I am not intelligent enough to make decisions for myself. We should not regulate someone's behavior that has absolutely no affect on society as a whole. One can argue, as my father did on many occasions - and he considered himself a liberal - that seat belt laws and helmet laws are intrusive and unnecessary. I have a right to be an idiot. Now, one can also make an argument that there is a societal cost for those who did not take advisable precautions and were involved in accidents. Once the numbers are crunched, if there is no net effect to the whole, the behavior should not be legislated.

Civil rights aside, that very same argument is made by supporters of same-sex marriage. How does some else's choice in partners affect me? It doesn't. Therefore there is no need to restrict that choice.

That is what I mean by a liberal libertarian. The social safety remains intact.